From the beginning of time man has looked up to their leaders. In ancient times they were viewed with a taste of divinity. From the God-emperors of Japan, to the divine-right kings of Europe, the people believed that their leaders where at the very least Gods chosen ruler, and at the most, God himself. The idea that leaders are just men is a relatively new idea. This is the opinion expressed in Joseph Ellis's book Founding Brothers. In the book, Ellis makes the claim that the Revolution generation was comprised of men, men that made history, maybe, but men never-the-less.
The backbone of Ellis's book is that the "founding brothers" were mortal. They were human. While they might seem like Zeus and the other Greek gods, they were still just men. They made mistakes. They were inherently flawed. This view is completely revolutionary in itself from the previous history of mankind. For centuries kings, queens, and emperors had been revered as the direct choice of God at the least. When they spoke, God was speaking through them. Their commands were unquestionable, and to be followed with absolute loyalty. After all, who would dare challenge the will of God? Ellis, however, takes the other approach. That these founding fathers were not super men; they may have raised to the occasion and changed history, however, they are still just men. The most prime example of the humanistic (a reference to the inherently flawed aspect of man, not the philosophical movement) nature of the founding brothers is the dual between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr. The tragic tale is that of two men who let their pride get the best of them. Neither one of them could stand to back down from the other. Neither one of them dared to take the easy way out and just apologize for their actions. Instead they allowed the sour feelings towards each other simmer and grow until blood was shed. They let their hate grow until it consumed them and one man's life was lost and the other was ruined. The clash of personalities is not limited to Hamilton and Burr. Adam and Jefferson have a historic clash that nearly separates these two Revolutionary War friends forever.
There may not be two more contrasting characters of early America then Thomas Morton and John Winthrop. Morton was nicknamed, "Leader of Misrule" while Winthrop was seen as the "model of [a] perfect earthly ruler" (147). These two figures not only help settle a new land, they also had firsthand knowledge of each other. They are not two people that lived years apart from each other but rather they lived concurrently. With two such polarizing people living in a small new land, there was bound to be at least one disagreement. We are fortunate to have writings from each of these two fascinating men. One can't help but be thoroughly entertained when reading the words that each man left behind. Morton was the rebellious and raucous and Winthrop was the conservative preacher. Each had different ideas and ideals for what America was to become. Their two opinions could not differ much more from the other but they both weren't quite right. It seems that America has found a middle ground. Perhaps these two help set the path to where we stand now.
Unfortunately, by choosing to focus on only a few events, Ellis's book fails in that it lacks somewhat of a scope. The book also focuses on some of the founding brothers in much greater detail than others. While I come away with a wealth of knowledge about both Adams and Jefferson, I have less knowledge of Ben Franklin and Aaron Burr, as Ellis's focus is significantly less on them.
And so, as he inquires about the safety of America and its liberties he must take time to see how his role is crucial in americas potential downfall. In the paragraph of Query 18 Jefferson asks the question “can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?” This rhetorical question shows how the effects of groupthink and how it negatively affected the masses and allowed individuals like Jeffersons to encourage the act of slavery yet, use the idea of America and its government as a scapegoat. Additionally, by admitting that “Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever:” Jefferson shows that he knows exactly what he is doing and that his actions have repercussions and that he has fell victim to Internalisation Conformity. Internalisation Conformity “when one adopts the ideas and actions of which it is composed - is intrinsically rewarding. He adopts the induced behavior because it is congruent [consistent] with his value system' (Kelman, 1958)” As readers read Query 18 they are able to see that although jefferson fears for the safety and the sanctity of his country he is unable to put a stop to slavery because of his enjoyment of being a master and his
Despite bouncing around the era a bit, the book flows well and the author's story telling easily keeps the reader turning pages. Though there is a strong bias to the patriotic elite, Ellis manages to keep in most respects a reasonably objective vantage point in the narrative and acknowledges that these Founding Brothers were indeed mere mortals, which fate or providence placed perfectly it seems.
There were many men involved in the establishment of the government, the laws regulating states and people, and individual rights in the construction of the United States of America. Two men stand out as instrumental to our founding principles: Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton.
Benjamin Franklin and Henry David Thoreau have been thought of as two powerful philosophers in history. Both men were alive centuries ago, but their unique ways of life and ideas still exist in some of history’s most admirable figures. Each man had a judgment that went beyond the era they existed in, but is still obvious in today’s culture. Even though both men are credited for their wise principles, their beliefs do not always coincide with one another. However, one thing they do have in common is that they both revolutionized America through their thoughts, actions, and distinctive opinions on how to improve the world around them.
The growth of a new nation can be a great struggle. Our founding struggled to form a perfect nation through the enactments of The Articles of Confederation, The Constitution, and also The Federalist Papers. They struggled to make a document that they could depend on in times of need, and the constitution was the one that really set the line and challenged the government to near perfection. Something can never be perfect that's why the federalist papers were created to enhance the constitution and make it something very close to perfect. All of these essays under the federalist papers were very important building blocks that helped us become the great nation that we are now.
... Men illustrates the principle that true leadership is not derived from power, but is a characteristic seen in individuals who possess an ability to pragmatically gain genuine support from their peers.
However, the author 's interpretations of Jefferson 's decisions and their connection to modern politics are intriguing, to say the least. In 1774, Jefferson penned A Summary View of the Rights of British America and, later, in 1775, drafted the Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms (Ellis 32-44). According to Ellis, the documents act as proof that Jefferson was insensitive to the constitutional complexities a Revolution held as his interpretation of otherwise important matters revolved around his “pattern of juvenile romanticism” (38). Evidently, the American colonies’ desire for independence from the mother country was a momentous decision that affected all thirteen colonies. However, in Ellis’ arguments, Thomas Jefferson’s writing at the time showed either his failure to acknowledge the severity of the situation or his disregard of the same. Accordingly, as written in the American Sphinx, Jefferson’s mannerisms in the first Continental Congress and Virginia evokes the picture of an adolescent instead of the thirty-year-old man he was at the time (Ellis 38). It is no wonder Ellis observes Thomas Jefferson as a founding father who was not only “wildly idealistic” but also possessed “extraordinary naivete” while advocating the notions of a Jeffersonian utopia that unrestrained
history men have always wanted to be like the gods. It is something that is seen over and
The men who wrote the American constitution agreed with Thomas Hobbes that humans were naturally evil. Therefore, they agreed that in order to prevent a dictatorship or monarchy, the citizens should have influence in the government. The writers wanted a more ideal constitution, but they realized evil human motives would never change. One of the main goals of the constitution was to create a balanced government that would allow the citizens to prevent each other from being corrupt. The writers wanted to give citizens liberty, but they did not want to give people so much liberty that they would have an uncontrollable amount of power. The writers agreed that a citizen’s influence in government would be proportionate to that individual’s property.
At an undetermined point in the history of man, a people, while still in the state of nature, allowed one person to become their leader and judge over controversies. This was first the patriarch of a family, then the wisest or fittest militarily of a tribe. These leaders ruled by wisdom and discretion, though neither they nor their followers were subject to any ratified laws. These rulers represented the earliest signs of an emerging hierarchical order, yet did not constitute a government in the formal sense.
... there has always been a leader to guide the people throughout their hardships. This leader can be anything from a tribal leader to the president of a country. Society in its modernity crumbles without anyone to lead it. Having a wise and just leader in my opinion is better than having none.
What is leadership, and how do we attain the best and most effective leaders? These are questions that are as old as civilization itself. Bass (1974) wrote that, “from its infancy, the study of history has been the study of leaders” (as cited in Wren, 1995, p. 50). Since the study of history in the West is commonly held to begin with Herodotus of ancient Athens, it is not surprising that we should examine the historical views of leadership through the eyes of two titans of Greek thought: Plato and Aristotle.
Women, on the other hand, are difficult to classify as a good leaders because in order to be a leader, we often need to sacrifice our femininity. This belief...